RE: VMs: VMS Thumbnail images

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Gillogly wrote:
> I'm on the conservative end this time as well.  However, I
> think it's not accurate to say that the VMs is a copyrighted
> manuscript.  My understanding is that copyright for a document
> resides in the author and the author's heirs for the life of the
> author plus N years, where N == 75 for the Berne Convention,
> which the U.S. signed in 1988.  This period is now expired or
> danged close even if Voynich forged it. :)

Point well taken.  I believe however that the term of copyright
for almost all works currently under copyright is a total of 95
years.

"Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either
on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the
date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished
form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28
years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of
the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The
Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47
years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or
for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total
term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on
October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights
still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing
for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of
95 years."


> However, photographs and scans of the folios are new documents
> themselves, and the copyright on them may be enforced, I think.
> Since Yale produced the copyflo and microfilm reproductions,
> they can set the terms for those images.  Since they control who
> photographs the manuscript in the future, they can set the terms
> for those photographs.
>
> However, it seems to me Yale does not control the copyright on
> pictures taken before their ownership -- those pictures would
> be governed by whatever terms they were taken under.  I think.
> This includes plates from Newbold and Kraus (among others), and
> the British Library microfilm.
>
> There's also an issue called "fair use", where small pieces of
> a copyrighted work may be used for scholarly or illustrative
> purposes.  I don't know the limits on this, but I think it's
> possible that thumbnails that are too small for analysis but
> large enough for recognition would fall into this category.

Quite so.  My many efforts in publications of Baconian Books make
me extremely familiar with "fair use" as it applies to text and
images from publications, but some recent copyright arguments
apply a different standard for the web.  In text or publication,
quoting paragraphs or even full pages of text from another author
without expressed permission is allowable as long as these are
placed within a context where their exclusion would significantly
detract from the discussion.  In media circumstances however,
people like Rush Limbaugh have successfully sued (or intimidated
others enough) to keep anyone from extracting or using their
statements in any manner, no matter how ridiculous the statement,
simply by saying that the airing of that media was copyrighted,
and quoting Archie Bunker's ...er Rush Limbaugh's statements made
in radio media, amounts to violation of media copyright.
Different standards apply to media as opposed to print.  (The
internet is a media under different standards that print
copyrights).

Images have been more stable in their copyright interpretation
however.  At no time may I publish (in print) an image from
another source under copyright without first obtaining permission
to do so, and must always enter a line such as "Courtesy Beinecke
Rare Book Library".  Beinecke and just about all other libraries
also require that you provide them with a copy of the book that
contains their images, as well as other requirements for certain
circumstances.  Beinecke has such requirements posted on their
site.

Because images from the British Library are available does not
mean that they have given up any rights to those images, and
before using these it would still be prudent to gain permission to
do so, and simply because Takahashi has gained permission does not
mean others have permission, etc.

I've been one of the most vocal in challenging the conservative
bent of Beinecke, and would sincerely like to see these images
used freely.  They haven't screamed so far with all that has been
published and mirrored, which to me is a good sign.  I will make
one more appeal to Beinecke to allow me to use their images for my
transcription purposes, after which I will probably make the
entire thing public without their permission.  I ain't getin' any
yunger, ya no.

GC

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list